CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 5 mars 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9F46BEC9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s42FEB1BD { width:30.88pt; display:inline-block } .sC54DD832 { width:160.45pt; display:inline-block } .s1C3491D { width:31.88pt; display:inline-block } .s549C6E96 { width:113.75pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 45594/19 Árpád-Sándor ASZTALOS and Others against Romania and 2 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 5 March 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Tim Eicke, President ,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins , judges , and Crina Kaufman, Acting Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to: the applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     At the time of the lodging of the application, the individual applicants were employees of the Veterinary Health and Food Safety Directorate (“the VHFSD”) in Covasna (first application); of the Dâmboviţa VHFSD (second application), and of the Vâlcea VHFSD (third application). The trade unions having initiated the domestic proceedings in the name of the individual applicants of the second and the third applications are also applicants to the Court in those applications, respectively, as listed in the appended table. 2.     Under Law no. 153/2017 regulating the public salaries framework and following the entry into force of Government decision no. 917/2017 on 1   January 2018, an expert report was produced which concluded that all the employees of the VHFSD were working in dangerous conditions. The VHFSD subsequently awarded some of its employees the allowances corresponding to dangerous working conditions; however, the applicants were excluded, following which they initiated domestic proceedings. The applicants in the third application also claimed an additional salary increase of 12,5% in relation to their activity as inspectors. 3.     Their claims were finally dismissed: on 20 March 2019 by the Brașov Court of Appeal (first application); on 2 April 2019 by the Ploiești Court of Appeal (second application) and on 6 May 2021 by the Pitești Court of Appeal (third application). The courts of appeal found that pursuant to the relevant law, such allowances were to be awarded in exceptional cases limited to employees whose salaries had reached a specific level as set out in the Law. 4.     The national Ombudsman lodged an appeal in the interests of the law seeking clarification of the matter in so far as there appeared to be a divergence in the interpretation of the relevant legal provisions by the domestic courts. In the Ombudsman’s view, the difference in treatment between employees who had been working in similarly difficult conditions was unjustified. The existence of such discrimination had been confirmed by the National Council for Combating Discrimination in its decision of 6   November 2019. 5.     In its judgment on the appeal in the interests of the law (judgment no.   27/2020 of 26 October 2020), the High Court of Cassation and Justice (HCCJ) established that the allowances were to be granted as prescribed by Law no.   153/2017, namely in connection with progressive levels of salaries. The HCCJ confirmed that the provisions were discriminatory but considered that in so far as that discrimination had been created by the law, the judiciary authorities were not in a position to remedy it by issuing individual decisions contradicting the legal provisions. Furthermore, the HCCJ noted that a draft law, aimed at granting allowances to all employees working in difficult conditions, was pending in the legislative procedure before Parliament. The draft law mentioned by the HCCJ in its decision was subsequently passed as Law no.   229 of 4 November 2020, the allowances being granted from the entry into force of the amended law, namely 1 December 2020. 6.     The applicants complained, under Article 6 § 1 and Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention, of discrimination due to the conflicting judicial practice of the domestic appellate courts, having regard to the fact that their claims for salary allowances arising from their working in “dangerous working conditions” had been dismissed while colleagues working in similar conditions had been successful in their claims. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 7.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 8.     The general principles applicable to cases concerning conflicting decisions in domestic judicial practice have been referred to by the Court in Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC] (no.   76943/11, §   116, 29 November 2016), and Petrescu and Others v.   Romania ((dec.), nos.   31390/18 and 9 others, § 55, 7 March 2023). 9.     The Court finds that the mechanism provided by the domestic law for overcoming inconsistencies in domestic judicial practice has been used effectively by the national Ombudsman, who brought an appeal in the interests of the law. Following that appeal, in its judgment no. 27/2020 of 26   October 2020, the HCCJ established that the allowances were to be granted in accordance with Law no. 153/2017, that is, in connection with progressive levels of salaries. In accordance with the domestic law, the HCCJ’s interpretation of the legal provisions in question is binding on all the domestic courts only after the publication of the HCCJ’s extensive decision in the Official Gazette. A decision delivered on an appeal in the interests of the law cannot alter the outcome of cases already decided. 10.     What is important is that the national mechanism for overcoming these inconsistencies was used within a relatively short time (approximately three years, from January 2018, when the legislation on which the applicants based their claims entered into force until late 2020, when the HCCJ’s decision establishing that the allowances were to be granted in the manner prescribed by Law no. 153/2017 was adopted), with the result that the divergence was accommodated (see Petrescu and others , cited above, § 60). Although the judgments dismissing the applicants’ claims in the first two applications were given before the HCCJ had had the opportunity to give a uniform interpretation of the legal texts in issue, achieving consistency in the interpretation of the law may take time, and periods of conflicting case-law may therefore be tolerated without undermining legal certainty. 11.     All the applicants had the benefit of adversarial proceedings, in which they were able to adduce evidence, and their arguments were properly examined by the courts. The courts’ conclusions and their interpretation of the relevant law cannot be regarded as manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable. 12.     Finally, the Court notes that, as regards the trade unions applicants in the second and third application, their complaints are incompatible ratione personae , since they concern rights of the individual employees ( Kalfagiannis and Pospert v. Greece (dec.), no. 74435/14, §§ 49-51, 9 June 2020). 13.     The Court considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 28 March 2024.     Crina Kaufman   Tim Eicke   Acting Deputy Registrar   President Appendix List of cases   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality   Represented by 1. 45594/19 Asztalos and Others v. Romania 23/08/2019 Árpád-Sándor ASZTALOS 1969 Sfântu Gheorghe Romanian Vilmos BALÓ 1979 Sfântu Gheorghe Romanian Tünde BARTALIS 1981 Sânzieni Romanian Botond BENKŐ 1980 Sfântu Gheorghe Romanian Zsolt-István BLAGA 1969 Arcuş Romanian Árpád BODONI 1957 Sfântu Gheorghe Romanian Zoltan BOTA 1959 Sita Buzăului Romanian Emőke CSEH 1978 Sfântu Gheorghe Romanian András Bertalan HENCS 1976 Catalina Romanian Ana Maria JÓZSA 1971 Sfântu Gheorghe Romanian Zsigmond KÉSZ 1962 Valea Crişului Romanian Irina KOCSIS 1960 Sfântu Gheorghe Romanian Zsuzsánna KÖVESDI 1981 Breţcu Romanian Elena MUNTEAN 1965 Sfântu Gheorghe Romanian Tünde NÉMETH 1969 Târgu Secuiesc Romanian Daniela-Alina OLTEANU 1978 Bucureşti Romanian Csaba ÖRSI 1979 Sfântu Gheorghe Romanian Botond PÁLL 1980 Târgu Secuiesc Romanian Raluca Cornelia POPESCU 1977 Sfântu Gheorghe Romanian Mária-Rozália SIPOS 1975 Sfântu Gheorghe Romanian Silvia SZÁNTÓ 1978 Valea Crişului Romanian Annamária SZÁSZ 1981 Sfântu Gheorghe Romanian Csaba-József SZOTYORI 1969 Baraolt Romanian Lóránd TUSA 1972 Sfântu Gheorghe Romanian   Iulian Dragomir RUSU 2. 49728/19 Sindicatul Liber al Veterinarilor Dâmbovița and Others v. Romania 18/09/2019 SINDICATUL LIBER AL VETERINARILOR DÂMBOVIȚA 2001 Târgoviște Romanian Doinița BĂDAN 1960 Târgoviște Romanian Daniel BADEA 1978 Târgoviște Romanian Luci BADEA 1962 București Romanian Ileana BĂILĂ 1968 Târgoviște Romanian Nicușor BĂJENARU 1963 Vulcana Băi Romanian Nicolae BĂLĂCEANU 1975 Târgoviște Romanian Victor-Florin BRATU 1969 Găești Romanian Ioana BUCUR 1990 Brănești Romanian Claudia-Mirela CHIRAN 1966 Târgoviște Romanian Dan-Marian CHISALAU 1969 Meri Romanian Ion-Liviu COBIANU 1970 Braniștea Romanian Iulia COBIANU 1967 Braniștea Romanian Anuș-Nicolae CONSTANTIN 1961 Târgoviște Romanian Gilda CONSTANTIN 1962 Târgoviște Romanian Stelian-Constantin ENE 1969 Târgoviște Romanian Cătălina-Mariana ȘERPOIU 1972 Bucșani Romanian Violeta FIERARU 1964 Găești Romanian Răzvan ȘILLO 1976 Moreni Romanian Ileana ION 1968 Meri Romanian Mihaela IORDACHE 1974 Dragodănești Romanian Sonel-Constantin IORDACHE 1966 Laicăi Romanian Elena IUȚALIM 1975 Priboiu Romanian Gabriela IVAȘCU 1959 Târgoviște Romanian Simona-Mariana LICHE 1980 Piersinari Romanian Marius-Andrei MĂNESCU 1980 Fieni Romanian Mihai-Cristian MĂRGĂRIT 1981 Târgoviște Romanian Minodora MATEI 1971 Găești Romanian Mirela-Tatiana MIHAI 1960 Comisani Romanian Maria-Bianca MIHAIU 1975 Râu Alb de Jos Romanian Brăduț-Bogdan MINEA 1979 Târgoviște Romanian Constantin MORARU 1959 Mănești Romanian Niculae NĂSTĂSESCU 1953 Pucioasa Romanian Marius Ion NEGOI 1966 Cândești Vale Romanian Carolina NICOLAE 1970 Găești Romanian Elena NICORICI 1960 Târgoviște Romanian Adrian-Cristinel NIȚU 1978 Târgoviște Romanian Ion OPRESCU 1972 Târgoviște Romanian Daniela PĂDUROIU 1968 Târgoviște Romanian Emilia-Neluța PATRAULEA 1968 Dealu Mare Romanian Silvia POP 1964 Butimanu Romanian Florinel POPA 1973 Călărași Romanian Adriana-Manuela PREDA 1980 Târgoviște Romanian Mihaela PREDA 1979 Târgoviște Romanian Vasile-Darie RADU 1967 Pietrosani Romanian Cristina RĂDULESCU 1964 Târgoviște Romanian George-Bogdănel ROȘU 1970 București Romanian Florina SAMOILESCU 1964 Târgoviște Romanian Maria SFETCU 1964 Târgoviște Romanian Anișoara STAVARACHE 1969 Manga Romanian Laurențiu STOICA 1965 Comisani Romanian Ionuț TOBOȘARU 1979 Valea Voievozilor Romanian Virginia TUDORACHE 1964 Târgoviște Romanian Dumitru UȚINA 1966 Gheboaia Romanian Camelia-Larisa UNGUREANU 1964 Gemenea-Brătulești Romanian Maria-Cocuța UNTARU 1967 Geangoești Romanian Claudiu-Teodor VASZIL 1971 Ploiești Romanian Bogdan VEDEANU 1978 Comisani Romanian Anuș-Nicolae CONSTANTIN 3. 55175/21 Sindicat Sinvet and Others v. Romania 29/10/2021 SINDICAT SINVET 2004 Râmnicu Vâlcea Romanian Mărioara ANDRONIE 1960 Râmnicu Vâlcea Romanian Elena-Gabriela BĂLTEANU 1969 Râmnicu Vâlcea Romanian Viorica BOROMIZ 1968 Râmnicu Vâlcea Romanian Elena-Cristina BUȘU 1976 Râmnicu Vâlcea Romanian Horatiu-Iuliu DORCA 1957 Râmnicu Vâlcea Romanian Maria GEORGESCU 1959 Bârsești Romanian Daniela GLONȚ 1972 Râmnicu Vâlcea Romanian Ionela IONESCU 1990 Râmnicu Vâlcea Romanian Camelia ȘOMANDRĂ 1962 Râmnicu Vâlcea Romanian Georgiana-Celesta PATRU 1972 Călimănești Romanian Camelia POPESCU 1972 Bărbătești Romanian Clara-Cristina RĂDULESCU 1975 Râmnicu Vâlcea Romanian Elena SIMION 1964 Bujoreni Romanian Liliana STANCIU 1970 Gura Văii Romanian Simona-Olguta STANESCU 1965 Fedeleșoiu Romanian Daniela-Lenuța BADEA